Paul Crowley (
ciphergoth) wrote2007-04-24 04:09 pm
Abilene paradox
Just randomly found this on Wikipedia: Abilene paradox - the possibility that a group decision will be made for X even though every single person in the group would prefer Y. This is a familiar situation to me, and I'm sure that's usual. It can be hard to express a preference weakly - you say "I'd slightly prefer not to get starters", and no matter how many caveats I put on that, it's rare that anyone is prepared to say "well, I really like their spring rolls so I would like to get starters if everyone else is OK".
On the other hand, it's kind of a good problem to have - I'd rather these problems than have everyone fighting to put their own needs ahead of everyone else's...
On the other hand, it's kind of a good problem to have - I'd rather these problems than have everyone fighting to put their own needs ahead of everyone else's...
no subject
I do wonder sometimes how much of the group communication is non verbal in such situations. Leading our decisions before we voice them.
Firelord
no subject
Mathematically speaking, Microeconomics use an interesting mix of set theory, orders with games theory thrown in the mix to try to represent "preferences" and associated properties. It's cute.
no subject
I'd rather these problems than have everyone fighting to put their own needs ahead of everyone else's...
Yes, indeed. It probably shows that said group is conscientious and caring. Or something.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I used to be very wary of being too definite about what I did/didn't want to do, in fear of everyone else saying, "bugger off and do that then, we're going to sit here/go to the pub/watch cartoons", and me being left all on my own because I didn't want to follow the majority.
I'm a bit tougher these days, I think.
no subject
I'd say an even better course is to be assertive about what you want, and try to help others to do the same. This has the double benefit of reducing to at least one person preferring the decision, and encouraging better processes to emerge.
When out and about with my extended parental family we frequently ended up with similar group decision-making failure modes: both the straight Abilene paradox and (more commonly) a meta-variation where there's endless postponement of a decision because nobody would express a preference, and everybody would have preferred an arbitrary decision made quickly. Canonically we'd wander round the streets for literally hours looking for somewhere to have lunch until we started to get snappy from hunger and tiredness.
Much better these days that I'll express my preference - weakly or strongly as appropriate - and we take it from there. Even if it's "I'm happy to eat pretty much anywhere, but I'd be happier if we don't walk around for ages choosing somewhere. How about we look at the next three on this street and pick the one we like best out of those?"
no subject
no subject
I'm not sure about the example though, given that usually there's no reason for one person not to have a starter even if no-one else does. I think it's more of an issue when only one person clearly expresses a view (eg I'm not going to that pub!) and all the others have only a weak dissenting view (let's go to the X, it's always OK).
no subject
no subject
Although yr specific example doesn't work on me as I'm *always* all about the tasty food when eating out so am most likely to say 'if no-ones minds, I'll get a starter/extra meal/six dinners etc to go along with what everyone else orders' and dive into the menu.
no subject
no subject
Been looking up Internet2 by any chance? *grin*
no subject
Did you follow the link to the article on Pluralistic ignorance and in particular the case of Kitty Genovese? A very chilling situation and one that is probably on the increase.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't think I'd say I want to do something if I don't. I might downplay how much I don't want to a little bit, ie "I'd be happy just to stay in, but if you want to go thats fine too."
no subject
"The meek shall inherit the Earth" - oh go on, if you insist...
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-04-26 08:04 am (UTC)(link)See also: shotgun rules for meetings: http://www.svbug.com/shotgun_rules.txt
-- Nathaniel
no subject
no subject
Does the same happen on mixed or male only committees?
no subject
no subject
Paid women's organisations - yup, no problems with decision making (in my experience)
Unpaid voluntary women's groups - decision hell (in my experience)